Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
Arun Kumar @ Manee & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 480 of 2017 a/w Cr. Appeal No. 192, 337, 382, 623 of 2017 and Cr. Revision No. 114 of 2018
Decided On : 10-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the convictions and sentences. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the charges and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. investigation and witness accounts. (Para 5) |
| 4. summary of evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments surrounding evidence and allegations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. impacts of the defective investigation on the case. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. judicial assessment of testimonies. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. significance of direct and circumstantial evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. discussion on conspiracy and criminal evidence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. final decisions on appeals and convictions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2017, vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . In addition to above, appellant-Rajeev Kaushal was also convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the ARMS ACT , and order dated 07.04.2017, vide which they were sentenced as under:-
| Section | Sentence imposed |
| Under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each. |
| Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. |
| Accused-Rajeev Kaushal is also sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- |
| All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT . It was asserted that Police Post-Mehatpur informed the Police Station Sadar Una that a shooting incident had taken place in plot No. 12B of Mehatpur Industrial Area. SI/SHO Kamaldeep (PW50), ASI Maan Singh (PW28), ASI Anjan Pal, HC Rajiv Kumar, HC Sartaj Singh and Constable Rajat Kumar went to verify the correctness of the information in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-20D-7645, which was being driven by Rajender Singh. Informant Dharma Nand (PW15) made a statement (Ext. PW15/A) that he was employed as a labourer in Jain Oil Mills located in Mehatpur Industrial Area. Vinod Kumar Jain (since deceased) owned the factory. Vinod Kumar Jain had another factory located in Jammu; hence, he used to visit the factory located at Una infrequently. Accused Pradeep Kumar used to look after the factory in the absence of Vinod Kumar Jain. The informant Dharma Nand and other labourers were sitting on the roof of the factory on 14.02.2013 at about 12:30 pm when they heard a gunshot. He and Duben Prasad @ Pandey (PW16) ran towards the factory gate and saw that Vinod Kumar was lying on the ground with his face down. Three persons sped away on a motorcycle. The informant and other persons found that Vinod had suffered a bleeding injury on his back. The informant called Pradeep. Pandey, Pradeep, the informant and Vinod Kumar carried the injured to NFL hospital, Nangal. Dr Vinay Gulati (PW10) examined Vinod Kumar and declared him brought dead. He issued the report (Ext. PW10/A). The statement (Ext. PW15/A) was sent to the police station where FIR (Ext. PW43/A) was registered. SI/SHO Kamaldeep (PW50) conducted the investigation. He seized the clothes of the deceased and wrapped them in a cloth parcel. He sealed the parcel with seven impressions of seal ‘M’. The seal impression (Ext. PW3/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The clothes were seized vide memo (Ext. PW3/B). He conducted the inquest and prepared
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
The High Court affirmed that, in chance recovery cases, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, reinforcing the credibility of police testimony despite the absence of independent....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to confront key witnesses undermines the credibility of its narrative.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
It is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be treated as evidence in criminal trial but may be used for limited purpose of impeaching credibil....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accus....
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to inadequate procedural adherence and unreliable evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
